HAV/00HQ/LBC/2025/0606 — service charge decision
In HAV/00HQ/LBC/2025/0606, decided 1 July 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at 211 Orchard Plaza, 412 High Street, Poole and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 211 Orchard Plaza, 412 High Street, Poole
Decision date: 1 July 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Quay Holidays LLP.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ground-rent-adjacent charges (2024-25) | £125 | £125 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal determines that the Respondent has failed to pay the ground rent due from her on 1 July 2024 and 1 January 2025 in the total sum of £125.”
“The front door and the front door frame form part of the exterior of the Premises. The responsibility for the repair replacing or renewing of the front door rests with the Management Company.”
“The electric shower unit shown in the photograph is clearly in disrepair. The electric shower unit is part of the interior of the Premises.”
“as at 24 September 2024 the Respondent sought to extract electricity from an electrical socket outside of the Premises.”
“the Tribunal is satisfied that since September 2018 to the present date the Respondent has directly, and indirectly through her visitors to the Premises, acted in a way which has caused a nuisance, annoyance, disturbance and inconvenience to the owners or occupiers of the apartments adjacent to or neighbouring the Premises.”
“The Tribunal is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent has been undertaking a trade from the Premises and has been using the Premises for illegal purposes in the form of drug dealing.”
“Upon being questioned by the Tribunal Mr Challis was unable to adduce any evidence in support of the contention that the gas central heating boiler was inoperable.”
This summary is assembled from the structured record of the published decision; amounts appear only where the tribunal stated them. Always rely on the full decision itself.